Why isn't acro more popular?

Acro is fun, no doubt. However, it is hard to find an acro-capable airplane that is also useful for other things, like traveling, working on an IFR, etc. If we all had unlimited money, we could have an airplane for each use. Unfortunately, few of us are in that category.
 
kyleb said:
Even driving an extra hour to where an acro plane is available is a fail. How many guys are going to do that frequently enough to maintain their tailwheel (typically) and acro currency to an appropriate level?
Click to expand...

I've driven that far. I've driven nearly that long and then flown yet further to get aerobatics time.

But, yeah, not everyone is willing to do so.
 
whifferdill said:
Plenty of pilots could afford a dirt simple $20K O-320-powered Acro Sport bipe that could sit in the back corner of their hangar for some cheap fun...if they really wanted to. You don't need to buy a brand-new $500K Extra 330. I know plenty of pilots with two (or more) airplanes. It comes down to what you want, and how much you want it.
Click to expand...


You said it right there. Hangar space.

If you have a box hangar, yes you can cram a Pitts back in the corner. But if it's a T-hangar you can't fit any other aircraft I can think of.

Y'all were talking about cockpit room, if I were going to dip my toe into the water, a Christen Eagle has been the roomiest full acro plane I've been in for my 6'4" average frame. :redface:
 
whifferdill said:
Plenty of pilots could afford a dirt simple $20K O-320-powered Acro Sport bipe that could sit in the back corner of their hangar for some cheap fun...if they really wanted to. You don't need to buy a brand-new $500K Extra 330. I know plenty of pilots with two (or more) airplanes. It comes down to what you want, and how much you want it.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Additionally, a non-9/10 RV would provide the practicality of gentleman's acro and a bona fide traveling cruiser without the need for two airplanes.

As to the Acro Sports, I'm not a fan of wood spar and fabric, but if it was metal I'd be all over it at that price point.
 
falconkidding said:
Hmm so seems like access is the big issue. Wonder how practical a non profit acro club would be. If that would lower cost enough to be more attractive.
Could you "rent" a RV7a if its part of a flying club? No scary tailwheel, low enough operating cost, sidexside for easy instruction and probably durable enough if you keep it to gentlemanly acro.
Click to expand...

15-20 years ago there was a partnership/club owned Extra 200 at Brookhaven, they might have had two actually. Iirc buy in was 30K, 25 hours for insurance check out. Dunno if they are still around or what became of it.
 
txflyer said:
You said it right there. Hangar space.

If you have a box hangar, yes you can cram a Pitts back in the corner. But if it's a T-hangar you can't fit any other aircraft I can think of.

Y'all were talking about cockpit room, if I were going to dip my toe into the water, a Christen Eagle has been the roomiest full acro plane I've been in for my 6'4" average frame. :redface:
Click to expand...

You can fit 2 Eagle cockpits in the Model 12 :)
 
pigpenracing said:
You can fit 2 Eagle cockpits in the Model 12 :)
Click to expand...


And buy three Eagles! ;)

After we get settled in our new place, maybe you need a partner in that 12! I don't see it flying near enough...

I can't talk much, mine isn't being flown enough.
 
hindsight2020 said:
As to the Acro Sports, I'm not a fan of wood spar and fabric, but if it was metal I'd be all over it at that price point.
Click to expand...

Wood/fabric is the most successfully proven design for aerobatic wings. Why do you have reservations? I know of a whole lot more failures of metal aerobatic wings than wood/fabric. Actually, I don't know of any failures of wood/fabric aerobatic wings. There are good reasons serious aerobatic wings are either built of wood or carbon fiber.
 
whifferdill said:
Wood/fabric is the most successfully proven design for aerobatic wings. Why do you have reservations? I know of a whole lot more failures of metal aerobatic wings than wood/fabric. Actually, I don't know of any failures of wood/fabric aerobatic wings. There are good reasons serious aerobatic wings are either built of wood or carbon fiber.
Click to expand...

Yes to that... I would hate a bent metal wing :(
I love wood and fabric, they ride so much smoother also.
I hear some people think the wood will get eaten with termites :dunno:
 
I know someone who attempted an aileron roll in a 172 many years ago - ended up about 1,000 feet lower, pointed at a right angle to the original heading. Oddly enough, he also did a loop in the same aircraft not long after. Well, more of a potato than a loop, really.

Overcome by advancing maturity and a deeper understanding of structural limitations and aerodynamics, he stopped abusing 172s.

I am sure he'd like to do simple acro more often, and wonders if a RV-4 or Emaraude driver would comment on the topic!
 
somorris said:
Acro is fun, no doubt. However, it is hard to find an acro-capable airplane that is also useful for other things, like traveling, working on an IFR, etc. If we all had unlimited money, we could have an airplane for each use. Unfortunately, few of us are in that category.
Click to expand...

Beech E or F-33C is the best 'hybrid' I know, the Piaggio/Fokke-Wolf 149 is pretty useful as well.
 
whifferdill said:
Wood/fabric is the most successfully proven design for aerobatic wings. Why do you have reservations? I know of a whole lot more failures of metal aerobatic wings than wood/fabric. Actually, I don't know of any failures of wood/fabric aerobatic wings. There are good reasons serious aerobatic wings are either built of wood or carbon fiber.
Click to expand...

Yeah, hard to beat wood for strength and resilience. Extra used to use a wood wing.
 
SF-260 - a real traveling machine AND happy on it's back (or side, or vertical, etc.)

Sadly, I do not have the means to own one, though I do occasionally find the pennies to fly one.
 
Sundancer said:
SF-260 - a real traveling machine AND happy on it's back (or side, or vertical, etc.)

Sadly, I do not have the means to own one, though I do occasionally find the pennies to fly one.
Click to expand...

Nice, but 2 seaters, definitely a fun and pretty plane though.
 
My Nanchang is a nice traveling machine for two. Big baggage compartment, comfy cockpit and 148kts cruise on 13gph. On top of that it is a very nice aerobatic machine with light controls and a decent roll rate and very docile stall. Don
 
The RVs are great traveling machines. Our RV-8, with fore and aft luggage compartments, can carry almost as much cargo as my Cherokee did. We travel all over in it, and we do not feel limited.

Best of all, we are doing 170 knots on 8.5 GPH.
 
Henning said:
Beech E or F-33C is the best 'hybrid' I know, the Piaggio/Fokke-Wolf 149 is pretty useful as well.
Click to expand...

That's why I suggested the Yak-18T, but it's a lot more thirsty than the Beech models, as well as being much more Spartan on the interior appointments . . . but some of 'em will seat 5 and have decent legs.
 
Jay Honeck said:
The RVs are great traveling machines. Our RV-8, with fore and aft luggage compartments, can carry almost as much cargo as my Cherokee did. We travel all over in it, and we do not feel limited.

Best of all, we are doing 170 knots on 8.5 GPH.
Click to expand...

How's that work out for putting in golf clubs, mountain bikes, and a 95lb dog?
 
I can put two sets of clubs and baggage in the Nanchang. Also agree the YAK 18T is a good aerobatic mount with room for 4-5. 17-18gph and I think around 135 kts. Don
 
yakdriver said:
My Nanchang is a nice traveling machine for two. Big baggage compartment, comfy cockpit and 148kts cruise on 13gph. On top of that it is a very nice aerobatic machine with light controls and a decent roll rate and very docile stall. Don
Click to expand...

Is that with 285hp? That's nice. The one I like is the Yak-11TW with the CJ-6 flush gear. I saw the M-14 rated at 475hp once, that should give that plane a hell of an up line.:yes:
 
Yes, that's with the 285hp. You are probably thinking of the YAK 52T tailwheel with the fully retractable gear. Another really nice flying airplane and around 160kts cruise but on around 18gph. It also has a very small baggage compartment. The YAK 52 is a good aerobatic airplane but with the gear that hangs out is only 120kt cruise airplane on 18gph and they only have 32gal of fuel so not great for cross country. I am going to put 60gal tanks in my Nanchang over the stock 40 gal for a 5 hour range. Don
 
I will say this, if it wasn't for aerobatic trading, flying collection fields on pipeline patrols would have been a lot more scary and dangerous, you only have so long to get t done, and you have to fly a plane pretty hard, close to the ground, to stay employed.
 
T-34 Beech are cool if you can afford one and you can live with a two seat tandem.

I guess they're putting IO-550's in them by now.... that would make one 'crispy.'
 
txflyer said:
T-34 Beech are cool if you can afford one and you can live with a two seat tandem.

I guess they're putting IO-550's in them by now.... that would make one 'crispy.'
Click to expand...

I haven't heard what all they did to work out the AD issues, but apparently they did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top